From common rules to best practices in European Civil Procedure (eBook)

Cover 1
From Common Rules to Best Practices in European Civil Procedure: An Introduction 9
(A) A New Era for Civil Procedure in the EU 9
(1) Policy and Legislative Perspectives 9
(2) An Academic Endeavour: the ELI-Unidroit European Rules of Civil Procedure 15
(3) From Common Rules to Best Practices 17
(B) Four Perspectives on EU Civil Justice 18
(1) Common Standards of EU Civil Procedure: Harmonization and Cooperation 18
(2) Procedural Innovation and e-Justice 20
(3) Alternative Dispute Resolution and Judicial Cooperation 22
(4) Promoting Best Practices in Judicial Cooperation 23
(C) Some Observations on Challenges and Future Avenues 23
(1) Justice for Growth and Justice as an End in Itself 24
(2) Horizontal and/or Vertical Harmonization: Towards More Coherence 25
(3) Towards “Minimum Common Standards”? 26
(4) Best Practices: Uniform and Effective Application 27
(5) Changing Dynamics in the EU 27
(D) Concluding Remarks 29
Common Rules and Best Practices From the Perspective of the European Commission 31
Common Rules and Best Practices From the Perspective of the European Parliament 35
Harmonizing Civil Procedure: Initial Remarks 43
(A) Preliminary Remark 43
(B) The Notion of a “Standard” 43
(C) Procedural rules, financial resources, mindsets 44
(D) Harmonization of Civil Procedure: Criticism 46
(E) Praesumptio Similitudinis? 47
(F) Procedural Law and Culture 48
(G) Drivers of Harmonization of Civil Procedure 50
(H) The “Quiet [?] Power of Indicators” 52
(I) The ELI/UNIDROIT Joint Project on European Rules of Civil Procedure 55
(J) Goals of Civil Justice 57
(K) Concluding Remarks 62
Approximation of Civil Procedural Law in the European Union 63
(A) Introduction 63
(B) Is Harmonization Necessary? 64
(C) How should Approximation be Achieved? 65
(D) Best Practices? 67
(E) How to Achieve Civil Procedural Alignment in Europe? 70
(F) Beyond Common Rules and Towards Best Practices EU Justice Scoreboard
(G) Conclusion 74
Do We Need Harmonisation to Achieve Harmonious Cooperation? 77
Judicial Cooperation for Criminal Matters as a Testing Field 77
(A) Introduction 77
(B) History and Evolution of Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters 80
(1) Background and First Steps towards Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters 80
(2) Procedural Safeguards: From 2000 to 2009 and Beyond 84
(C) Mutual Recognition, Approximation, Equivalence, in Judicial Cooperation for Criminal Matters 86
(1) Mutual Recognition versus/and Approximation 86
(2) In the context of criminal judicial cooperation 87
(a) Mutual Recognition, Approximation and Fundamental Rights 87
(b) The CJEU. Mutual Trust beyond Approximation 90
(3) Allocation of Roles between the Issuing and the Requested Member States 96
(D) Approximation of Procedural Rights. The State of the Art 98
(1) Procedures for Mutual Recognition 98
(2) Approximation of Procedural Rights and Safeguards 99
(3) Assessment 103
(E) Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters: A Comparison 106
(1) Articles 81, 82 TFUE 106
(a) A Divergent Wording 106
(b) Relevant Divergences 107
(2) Conceptual Bases. The Role of the Individual 109
(3) Nuances 112
(4) How, How Much 114
(F) Conclusion 116
Harmonious Judicial Cooperation Through Harmonisation: (What) Can We Learn From Criminal Matters? 119
(A) Introduction 119
(B) Has Harmonisation in Criminal Justice Led to Harmonious Cooperation? 120
(C) The Civil Justice Paradigm and the Role of Party Autonomy 125
(D) Minimum Standards as Maximum Standards 127
(E) Enforcement of Standards 129
(F) Conclusion 130
Harmonization of Civil Procedure: Is the United States a Model for the European Union? 133
(A) Introduction 133
(B) From the English Tradition to a United States Model 136
(C) The Limits of Procedural Harmonization in the US 138
(1) Procedural Diversity Across US States 139
(2) Procedural Diversity within the Federal System 141
(3) Procedural Diversity Between State Systems and the Federal System 144
(4) Implications for the European Union 145
(D) The Full Faith and Credit Alternative 147
(1) Full Faith and Credit 147
(2) Fundamental Principles of Procedure 150
(3) Implications for the EU 152
(E) The Politics of Procedural Reform 155
(G) Conclusion 157
Comments on Christopher A. Whytock, Harmonization of EU Procedural Law: Is the US a Positive or Negative Model? 159
(A) Introduction 159
(B) Reasons for legal transplants from the federal or European level to the member states 160
(C) The trickling down of European rules of civil procedure into the domestic legal systems 165
(1) Through domestic legislation 165
(a) Recognition and enforcement of third-state judgments 165
(b) Public policy 166
(c) Service of documents 167
(2) Through domestic courts 169
(a) In general 169
(b) Place of performance in contractual litigation 169
(c) Choice-of-court agreements with consumers 170
(d) Violations of personality rights via the internet 171
(e) Negative declaratory action and lis alibi pendens 175
(3) Conclusion 176
(D) Top-down harmonization 177
(E) "Full faith and credit" and mutual trust 178
(F) The political dimension 179
(G) Conclusion 180
From Drafting Common Rules to Implementing Electronic European Civil Procedures: The Rise of e-CODEX 181
(A) Introduction 182
(B) Research Methodology 184
(C) European Civil Procedures 186
(D) e-CODEX 192
(1) An introduction to the project 192
(2) Determining the technological and normative requirements 193
(a) Key legal requirements 194
(b) Key technological requirements 195
(c) Additional requirements 196
(3) The e-codex solution 197
(4) From developing to piloting 199
(E) Going Beyond 204
(1) Knowledge creation on cross-border procedures 204
(2) Policy making and Political dimensions 205
(F) Concluding remarks 211
Taking Justice Online: Developments in England and Wales and Their Potential Influence on European Procedural Harmonisation 213
(A) Introduction 213
(B) Background to the Reforms 215
(C) Two Routes to Reform 219
(1) The first route – The HMCTS Reform Programme 219
(2) The second route – JUSTICE, the CJC and the CCSR 223
(D) Inspiration for European Convergence 233
(E) Conclusion 240
Envisioning the Next Step in e-Justice: In Search of the Key to Provide Easy Access to Cross-border Justice for All Users 243
(A) Introduction 243
(B) Where It All Began: At the Origins of the Cross-border Access to Justice Topic 247
(C) The e-Justice Now 250
(1) e-Law 251
(2) e-Justice 253
The deployment of e-CODEX in the Civil Law domain experience 255
(D) Cross-border Justice From the User Perspective: The User Story Approach 260
(1) An Example of User Story Derived From the API for Justice Project: DIY Application for the European Order for Payment 261
(2) Getting away from frustration 262
(E) Where to Go From Here 264
E-Justice, Innovation and the EU 271
(A) Introduction: A Triad of Issues 271
(B) EU e-Justice 274
(1) Background 274
(2) Nascent e-Justice Developments 276
(a) Aims, Scope and Functions 276
(b) Achievements and Future Projects 278
(c) e-CODEX 279
(3) Analysis 281
(a) Challenge of Decentralisation and Interoperability 281
(b) Challenge of Functionality 283
(c) Additional Challenges 285
(C) Electronic Service of Documents 287
(1) Domestic Models in the EU 287
(2) Supra-National Regulations 289
(a) EU Civil Justice Acts 289
(b) Other Structures and Models 292
(3) Issues for the Legislator 294
(D) E-Justice and Innovation 297
(1) General Perspective: What is the Crux? 297
(2) EU Perspective: An Easy Fix or a True Change? 301
Litigation Costs and Procedural Cultures – New Avenues For Research in Procedural Law – 303
(A) Introductory Remarks 303
(B) Litigation Costs at the National Level 304
(1) Significance of Litigation Costs 304
(a) For the Users of Judicial Services 305
(b) For Third Individuals 306
(c) For the Providers of Judicial Services 307
(2) The Financial Risks of Litigation 309
(a) Court Fees 309
(b) Costs Arising from Taking of Evidence 311
(c) Attorney Fees 313
(3) Allocation of Financial Risks 315
(a) Allocation of Costs on the Demand Side 315
(i) Inter partes 316
(ii) Inter users 318
(b) Allocation of Costs on the Supply Side 319
(i) The allocation of costs on taxpayers 319
(ii) The limits of the allocation of costs to taxpayers in time of crisis 323
(c) Spreading Risks among Larger Groups 326
(i) Legal aid 326
(ii) Mutualising litigation risks among potential litigants 328
(iii) Litigation investors 330
(C) Litigation Costs in Cross-Border Cases 331
(1) Pre-litigation Costs 332
(2) Cost of Service 336
(3) Cost of Translation 337
(4) Cost of Applying and Proving Foreign Law 338
(a) Ex officio Application of Foreign Law 339
(b) Assessment of the Content of Foreign Law 342
(i) National practices 342
(ii) International and EU instruments 344
(5) Cost of Enforcement 348
(D) Conclusions 349
Consumer Dispute Resolution Mechanisms: Effective Enforcement and Common Principles 353
(A) Introduction 353
(B) Rise and Autonomy of CDR 354
(C) Effective Enforcement 358
(1) A(C)DR 358
(2) New Approaches of Enforcement 361
(D) Common Principles, Standards or Rules 364
(1) ADR Directive 364
(2) Guide for Regulating Dispute Resolution 366
(3) EU Collective Redress Policy 369
(4) Human Rights 372
(5) Administrative Justice 373
(E) Conclusion 377
The Need for Synergies In Judicial Cooperation and Dispute Resolution: Changes in the European Small Claims Procedure 379
(A) Introduction 379
(B) The Limited Success of the European Small Claims Procedure And The Reasons Behind Its Limited Use 381
(C) A Critical Analysis of the Recent Amendments of the ESCP Regulation 385
(1) Increasing the Economic Ceiling for Small Claims and Requiring Proportionate Fees 385
(2) Greater Use of Electronic Communications 386
(3) Extension of the Information Obligations 388
(4) The Enforcement Stage 389
(D) Obstacles in the Enforcement Process 390
(E) A Model of Cooperation Between the ESCP and Online Dispute Resolution 393
(1) The Need for Greater Synergy 393
(2) Pre-Action ODR 395
(3) Court-Annexed ADR Processes 396
(4) The EU ODR Platform 400
(F) Conclusions 401
Transplanting Best Practices from ADR Mechanisms to Court Proceedings in Cross-border Litigation? 403
(A) ADR Mechanisms and Court Proceedings: sometimes troublesome Synergies or Cross-fertilization? 403
(1) Synergies between ADR and Court Proceedings 404
(2) Transplants or Cross-fertilization between ADR and Court Proceedings to Overcome the Obstacles of Cross-border Litigation 408
(B) Best Practices in Business-to-Business Cross-border ADR Mechanisms: Lessons Learned from International Commercial Arbitration 410
(1) The Adjudicator Issue 410
(2) The Place for the Development of Proceedings 412
(3) The Issue of Language 413
(4) Case Management 414
(5) Costs 415
(C) Best Practices in C2B Cross-border ADR: Lessons Learned from Consumer Dispute Resolution Mechanisms 415
(1) Finding the Appropriate Body to Resolve a C2B Dispute 417
(2) Costs 420
(3) Duration 421
(4) Language 421
(5) The Issue of Enforcement 423
(D) Final Remarks 424
How can alternative mechanisms for dispute resolution contribute to judicial cooperation and what is needed to ensure effective enforcement in cross-border cases? 427
(A) The European Consumer Centres Network (ECC-Net) 428
(B) Judicial co-operation 428
(C) ADR entities and ODR-platform 429
(D) Enforcement and Consumer Protection Cooperation network 434
The Promotion of Best Practices in European Civil Procedure: Some Introductory Remarks 439
(A) Scope 440
(B) Legitimacy 441
(1) The Field is Occupied by European Legislation 441
(2) The Field is Occupied by National Legislation 442
(C) Mutual Trust 442
(1) When is there a need to further Mutual Trust? 443
(2) The Example of Judicial Expertise 444
(D) Identifying Best Practices 446
(E) Promoting Best Practices 449
European Order For Payment Procedure From the Businesses Perspective and Practice 451
(A) Context 451
(B) European Order for Payment Procedure: Practical Feedback from the Companies 452
(C) Best Practices in Companies Support 453
How can the best practices of legal professionals with judicial cooperation be operationalised to improve mutual trust? 455
Incorporating European Uniform Procedures into National Procedural Systems and Practice: Best Practices a Solution for Harmonious Application 459
(A) Introduction 459
(B) Methodology 463
(C) European Uniform Procedures 464
(D) Implementation Within National System and Practice 468
(E) Use of the European Uniform Procedures 471
(F) Best Practices: a Way to Address National Differences 475
(G) Final Remarks 480
Approximation of Procedural Law in Europe 481
(A) Lecture in Milano 481
(B) The third World Congress of the IAPL 481
Index 485